Hellenistic and Hellenic Interpretation of Popper :: Scientific Theories Science Essays

classic and Hellenic Interpretation of PopperSir Karl Popper states in his treatise Philosophy of Science a Personal proclaim asserts that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability (Popper 23). He claims that a good scientific theory must meet a item-by-item requirement its capability of being tested. In other words, a good theory predicts future observations, and the accuracy of the prediction supports or refutes it. If a theory cant be tested then it isnt scientific. While agreeing with Poppers falsifiability criteria, I question his initial assumptions of the nature of acquisition. He suggests that all scientific thought is purely logical and scientific theories are rigorous, mathematical and precise. While true for most modern theories, this assumption is not true for ancient scientific theories. Modern science is a product of Hellenistical thought, which evolved from Alexandrine culture. Modern theories, as we ll as those which follow the Hellenistic tradition, are characterized by their narrow focus of logic and mathematics -- they explain how something works (Kuhn 104). However, the scientific predecessor of Hellenistic thought, Hellenic science, provided explanations for not only how something works, but also why it was there. Hellenic theories, by their nature, were loosely constructed in order to explain two observed anomalies and questions of existence. Since Hellenic theories tackle both of these questions, they often cannot be tested (how does a person test the nature of reality?). So Poppers claim of falsifiability cant admit to Hellenic science, as the majority of its theories fail Poppers criteria. Indeed, the foundations of scientific thought are unscientific. His argument eliminates the backbone of scientific thought by the presumption that all science is Hellenistic. Modern science bases itself on Hellenistic thought, so its theories are characterized by quantitative value rather than qualitative thought. Relating the two fields of scientific thought, Kuhn observes that Hellenistic science is less philosophical and more mathematical and numerical, than its Hellenic predecessor (104). Compared to Hellenic thought, the very nature of science changed from speculative and philosophical to precise and mathematical. In fact, the modern scientific method is Hellenistic. But, Hellenistic thought does not address any philosophical implications which arise from scientific theories. Kuhn addresses this dichotic split between philosophy and logic Economy as a purely logical function, and cosmological satisfaction as a purely psychological function, lie at opposite ends of a spectrum (39). Einsteins gravitational theory illustrates modern Hellenistic theory.